To my teachers, colleagues, and students, with grateful

thanks to them all. The Anthropology of Religion An Introduction

Second Edition

Fiona Bowie

Blackwell Publishing

IIIACK\VELL PUBLISHING

350 Main Srierr, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxfixd OX4 2 W , UK 550 Swanston Srreer, Cnrlaln, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of Fiona Bowir ro he idmr~iied as thc Author of (his Work has been asserred in

acciirdance wirh the UK Copyrighr. Designs, and Parents Acr 1988.

All rights reserrcd. No pair oirhis publication may br reprducrd, smred in a rerrieval sysrem. or

uansmcrted, in ;any form or hy any mern, elecrrunic, inechanical. ~ h o i o c o ~ y i ~ ~ , reconling or

otherivise, except xr prmitrcci by ihc UK Cupyriglx, l?csigna, and Patenw Act 19R8, u,irta,or rhv prior pcnxrirsxn, irf rhr pohlirhcr.

First editam puhlislled 2000 S c u ~ n l l cd~rion puhlishrd 2006 by 8lackwell PublishingLtd

&iwie. Fiona. Tl~e anfhropulo~y of religion :an inircduction / F ~ n n s Howie.-2nd ed.

p. cm.

Includes biblio~mpbic.~l rrferencer and index.

ISRN-I?: 978-14051-2104-0 ISBN-10: 14051-2104-1 (alk, paper) ISBN-13: 97K-14051-2105-1 ISBN-lo: 14051-2105-X (all.

I . Ethnology-Rrligiour aspeirs. 2. Keligmn. I. T~rle. BL256. Bh9 2005 Oh.6-iic22

2005019722

A csralocue ~cc<irii for r l w mlc ir nvailahlr ir,>nl rl,c Ri~i>sh 1.ihmry

Ser to 10/12.5pi G , , ~ d p by SI'I Puhlisirer Ser\wces, I'ondichrrry, India Printed axid beonJ in ihc U n ~ ~ c d K ~ n g ~ l ~ > m hy TJ In~ernarional, P~~drmw. C,rnwnll

Tire puhiiahcr's poitcy e ~i, use ,Termanenr paper f n m rnills that opelate a susiainahle forestn.

policy, and u.hi i l~ 11;ia been m;niufi~crorcd from pull> ~rixcised osini: acld-free and plcrneniary

chiorme-frcr practices. Furrhermorr, rhe puhlisiier ensures ~ l l a r rhc rexr paper and ewer hi~arJ used have mcr accepr;ahic rnvinino>czir;il ;~ccrcdlr;trlon ir;tndards.

Contents

Preface to the Second Ed~tion

Preface to the First Edition

1 Theories and Controversies

Introduction Issues in the Study of Religion Tllc Origins of Religion Defining Religion Conclusion Notes References and Further Reading

2 The Body as Symbol Introduction Symbolic Classification and rlre Body Training the Body and Social Control Personal and Cultural Symbols Conclusion Notes Refere~lces and Further Reading

3 Maintaining and Transforming Boundaries: thc Politics of Religious Identity

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 111 'I IIEURIES A N D CONTROVERS~ES

While structural theory was popular in Britain for a period in the 1960s and 1970s, its influence within anglophone social and cultural anthropology has been less marked than the Durkheimiansymbolist approach. As with the earlier search for universals, the innate strucmres proposed by Gvi-Strauss remain speculative and (like Frazer's Gofden Bough) there is a danger of simply amassing data that repeat an argument without actually strengthening it. For Uvi-Strauss, individual experience and emotions such as love, hate, fear, and desire are subsidiary to the basic underlying structures that give rise to society, which have a biological basis. Many critics have in the end found that such an approach leaves too many important questions unanswered." We may unravel the structures of the mind and of society, but do we know what it is to live and feel as a human being? If history and agency take a back seat, can we see ourselves as self-determining individuals and can we understand the complexity of interactions between humans and their physical and social environment?

M e have surveyed a number of approaches to the study of religion without thus far attempting to define "religion" itself. In the next part of the chapter we will therefore look at some of the most widely quoted definitions of religion, although the reader may conclude that they are so vague or contra- dictory that the attempt has limited utility.

Whatever religion may or may not be, there was no shortage of Victorian explorers, traders, and missionaries who could declare with confidence that "savages" did not have it. A famous explorer, Sir Samuel Baker, addressed the Ethnological Society of London in 1866 on the topic of theNorthern Nilotic peoples of Africa, stating that: "Without any exception, they are wirhotlr ;I

belief in a Supreme Being, neither have they any form of worship or icl<>l:~tly;

I nor is the darkness of their minds enlightened by even a ray of superstition. ~h~ mind is as stagnant as the morass which forms its puny world."2o

Henry Drummond, a widely traveled Evangelical Christian, attempted to combine evolutionary theory with more charitable and romanticized senti-

I ments in his view of "primitives." In Rousseauesque terms, Drummond (1894)

states that "here in his virgin simplicity dwells primeval man, without clothes, witl~out civilization, without learning, without religion - the genuine child of nature, thoughtless, careless and contented. This man is apparently quite happy; he has practically no w a ~ ~ t s . " ~ ' Such gross and obvious mistakes depended on a n ignorance of the lives and languages of the peoples under discussion. Europcan observers (as with all travelers) looked for points of contact with their own culture, and often failed to recognize what we 22 might wish to term "religion" when it presented itself in unfamiliar guises. Even

when Europeans and Africans, or other "natives," spoke the same language (such as a Pidgin English), this was no guarantee that the meanings attached to words corresponded. As Evans-Pritchard (1972, p. 7) observed:

I Statements about a people's religious beliefs must always b- treated with rhe greatest caution, for we are then dealing with what neither European nor native can directly ohserve, wirh conceptions, images, words, which require for under- standinga rhorough knowledge ola people's lar~gua~e and alsoan awarrtneu of the cnrire sgsrcrn of idea of which any particular belicf is part, for i t may he mean. ~ngless whcn divorced from thc set of helief5 and pracrices to which it helongs.

Friedrich Max Miiller (1823-1900); a German philoldgisr, who spent most of tiis ucademic life,in~Oxf~rdd, , , , , . . . is regarded,as . . . .. . ,. one:of rhe,f?unding fathers of comparative religion Miilier, in hii:jmcdzmh ~ ., . . . to . the , S+ of R e l i e (1873), argued thar

!.belief in a divine being was "nivenal, and that.however chiIdii~'or primitive a . -, ,.., , . . 'religion might.app+, i t still&rved to place ihe human soul in the presence of Bod. Miiller that the truths ptesent in all religions would one day give the to a new forin of relipion, which might still be called Christianity, that wwld

we the best of each revelation of the divine. . .

Definitions

@'he11 wc ctmc to loilk ar various definitions i?f religion, we need rorernember &at wc:,rrcon.;1rtlc1in~;1c:11<'~or~ ("r111~ion") hascd upon Eurol>c:rn languages

20 THEORIES AND CONTROVERSIES

categories that Westerners can understand and interpret in terms of their own experience. 23

The word "religion" in Western European languages probably derives from the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek attributed to Saint Jerome (c. 345420). The Greek term threskeia was translated with the Latin religio. Latin-speaking church fathers, unlike their Greek counterpans, spoke of "true" versus "false" religion (Pieris, 1988).

Tylor (1958, p. 8) argued that a minimum definition of religion was "the belief in Spiritual Beings." In one form or another this definition, with various embellishments, has proved remarkably durable, despite the fact that it begs the question, "what are Spiritual Beings?" For Tylor, religion is a n attempt by human beings to make sense of their experiences and of the world in which they live (sometimes called an intelkctualist approach to religion).

A rather different but equally influential definition of religion is given by contemporary American anthropologist Clifford Geern, who is often seen as a representative of the symbolist approach to religion, with its focus on what reli@ons represent. Symbolists look at the ways in which symbols and rituals act as metaphors for social life, rather than a t what religions seek to explain.

For Cl~fford Geern rellglon a:

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powelful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality rhat (5) the moods and motivations scem uniquely realistic. (Geera, 1973, p. 4)

Also in the symbolist camp is Melford Spiro, who, in a long article on problems of definition, defined religion as "an institution consisting of culmrally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman be ings" (Spiro, 1973, p. 96).

One of the most vociferous critics of symbolist definitions of religion is Robin Horton, who claims that:

defining religion as strucrural symbolism comes LO much 1111, saznc t l i~n r : ;m

defining the suhsrnncc (,i "lincn" in t i ~ l l , s c , T i t \ , I ' ci~~io~linl II\V ;I\ :$ 11.11: 1 1 ~

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 2 1

symbolic function is as incidental to the nature of the first as iris to the second (Horton, 1994, p. 23)

Hotton's own definition of religion is "an extension of the field of people's social relationships beyond the confines of purely human society," in which human beings see themselves as being in a dependent relationship \,is-$-"is their "non-human alters." The qualification is necessary to exclude relation- sh ip with domestic animals from the definition - after all, every time someone feeds the cat or walks the dog he or she is involved in social relationships "beyond the confines of purely human society" (Horton, 1994, pp. 31-2). While Horton identifies himself with thc iiitellectualist position associated with Tylor, his definition also contains l>urkheio~ian elements in its view of religion as an extension of social relationships, i.e. its approach is inductive rather than deductive, starting from human beings and their experience, rather than looking down from the position of God. For Horton, who has spent most of his academic life living and working in Africa, symbolist interpretations betray the ethos of Western universities: "The reality of spirits is apt to fade, to he replaced by visions of people engaging in elaborately veiled power-plays, composing secular poerry, or participating in complicated semiological parlour games" (Horton, 1994, p. 386).

Leaving aside for the present the intcllectualist/sy~nbolisr debate, Artl~ur Lehmann and Jarnes Myers have proposed an extended vetsiun oiTplur's and Spiro's definitions that in practice covers most oi' what anthropoli~gists might wish to include in a book such as this on the anthropology of religion:

Expaddig the definition of religion beyond spiritual and superhuman beings to include the extraordinary, the mysterious, and unexplainab1,le allows a more coniprchensivr view of religious behaviors among the peoples of the ivurld and pertnils the anthropological investigation of phenomena such as mag)', sorcery, curscs, and other practices rhat hold meaning for both prrlitcraie and literate socirties. (Lehrnann and Myers, 1997, p 3 )

An influential definitional approach to religion from within religious studies is Ninian Smart's analysis of religion according to various "dimen- sions." These too are intended to apply to all rcligioris, arid car1 be seen as a remindcr to theologians and historians of r r l i~ ion not to forget the practical, aesthclic, and emotiol~al ;Ispecrs of reli~iotl in 1Ireir concentration on scrip- tures ;111d doctriral for111111:1i,. Too < ) ~ ~ C I I W I I ; I I ;[re ~ : & C I I $15 ; m ~ t I ~ < ~ n t i < ~ <r CorrrtY <orins of re!iKit~ti ;IIV 111v r r ~ ~ r ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ l : t ~ i o ~ t s < > I lwic~s~ly < , I i ! vh , i 1 1 1 ~ ~ r v ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ in w11;it tIx,ir rc1ij:it111 I ~ I Q ~ I I I I,, IF? I I ~ ~ I N ~ I I I ~ : I I ~ I I O N 11 I* $1, ~ \ t ; i I l q l i \ , t .<l I!\, 111r ~ i y S t I ! Srtteit'a ~lttttrnsit!~tr hilvr wonr I I I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I P \ ' ~ I M ~

22 THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES

incarnations over the years, and have reached their most developed form to date in Dimenstons of the Sacred. T o his most widely cited "seven dimensions" Smart has added an eighth, the political and economic, giving us the following list (Smart, 1996, pp. 10-11):

1 Ritual or practical. 2 Doctrinal or philosophical. 3 Mythic or narrative. 4 Experiential or emotional. 5 Ethical or legal. 6 Organizational or social. 7 Material or artistic. 8 Political and economic.

Smart's dimensional approach is within the comparative, phenomenological tradition, looking for points of similarity and contact between the world's religions, rather than the more traditional anthropological focus on the social nature of religion within a specific host communiry or sub-group. Where most anthropologists would agree with Smart is on the utility of regarding religion as a multifaceted phenomenon with overlapping spheres, rather than a single "thing" that can be readily identified and studied in isolation. Religions differ in their emphasis on these dimensions, as do groups within a single religious faith. The doctrinal and legal aspects of Islam and Judaism, for instance, are well developed, whereas societies without written scriptures are more likely to emphasize the role of myths, perhaps enacted in dance or through "shamanic" trancing. Within Christianity some branches of Protest- antism place great emphasis on personal experience and emotion, whereas Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicis~n are more focused on liturgy and ritual, and have in many places a highly developed material and artistic dimension (churches, icons, vestments, music, and so on).

Some of these descriptions of religion, such as Smart's, are just that - attcmprs to categorize and classify religion without really addressing the ques- tion as to just what it is we are looking at. Other definitions are dependent on a view as to what function religion serves, or relate co ideas concerning the genesis of religion. In this final sub,section we will look at attempts to categorize various religions, and at some problems with these categories.

Categories

When nineteenth-century scholars turned their attention to the srtldy uf religion they not unnaturally used their own experi<.nc.c :I> :I h : ~ , 1;,r c.oln-

pz~ris<ni. The !nost cn<lurin~ <livision I ~ > : I I ; I ~ O S V W I I ~ I I C I ! V C ~ ~ ~ I I I I H . 50 c 111It.cl

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 23

%'world religions" and the others. Whatever a world religion might be, the lcligion of "primitives" or "savages" must be different, its mirror image. World religions themselves were divided into "higher" and "lower" forms ,lcpending on their perceived similarity to or difference from the main three Scmitic religions, Judaism. Christianity, and Islam. The view of each religion was largely based on its elite or doctrinal and scriptural forms, rather than its Inore popular "folk" manifestations. While the racist and hierarchical over- tones of such thinking are n o longer considered acceptable, the original classifications have proved remarkably enduring, particularly within the fields of theology and religious studies.

The supposed features of a "world" religion

1 11 is based on wrirten scriprures. 2 it has a norion of salvation, ohen from ourside (a "coming deliverer"). 3 It is universal, or has universal potential. 4 11 can subsume or supplanr a "primal" religion. 5 it often forms a separate sphere of acriviry.

l{y way of contrast, "primal" religions are often seen as a mirror image of the w~rld religions.

The supposed features of "primal" religions

1 They are oral - if the culrure is lirerate, the religion lacks wrirten scriptures and formal creeds.

L They are "chis-worldly" in orientation. 3 They are confined to a single language or ethnic group. 4 They form the bases from which world religions have developed. 5 Religion and social life are inseparable and intertwined, and there isno clear

division berween rhe "sacred" and "profane" or natural and supernarural. -~ t

'I'hcse c:lregi,riz;llions ;Ire nor without utility, or they would not have s l ~ ~ v ~ v c d sc, lonr. T1u.v rlo. however. ;IS numerous scholars have pointed . . 11111, 1 ~ ~ : 111;iny I ~ ~ I ~ , S I ~ C I I ~ S , ;IIKI xrr tit lhcst it1teIl~c111~11 con~triicts rather than POI l i p l io~~s 1 1 1 rr;tlity. 'I.,, lakc rllc wllrld rc.liKio~~i first. I , , wI1;tf C X I C I I I <:Ill ~ T H , , I ~ I , , , , I ~:,~lll,l,~llllll~!!l 1,c ~ c , l l ~ l ' l c ~ l ~ , l I , , Ill,\!t. , , t l i \ ~ , . l ~ ~ i l l~,~lc.tlll~ll!'l 11vy : 1 1 < ,

I ~ ~ B I I I L ~ ~ I I I I ! , O I ! ! ~ ~clrmetl t ~ t ns wi~riil ~ ~ I I ~ I V I I S ~ 13i11 C I I C Ii11pr1v L ~ ~ I I ~ I I I ~ : ~ ~ 1 1 8

24 THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES

South East Asia. Confucianism is as inseparable from Chinese notions of social order as the concept of dharma ("law") is from the Hindu caste system. The Vedic (scriptural and priestly) elements of Hinduism are indeed only one strand, and most "village" Hinduism would more closely fit the descrip- tion of a primal religion. T o what extent can Judaism, with its notion of membership via descent in the female line, really be seen as a universal religion? Islam places great emphasis on the sanctity and authority of the holy Qur'an, but the scriptures were originally recited to Muhammad, and the recitation of the Qur'an from memory in Arabic remains central to Islamic worship. Most fervent practitioners of "religions of the book" claim that religion penetrates all aspects of their lives - there is no experience or part of the day that does not come under its jurisdiction.

What, apart from the rather arbitrary list of elements (which derive mainly from Western Christianity ), do these world religions have incommon! Is there any descriptive utility in ranging the Semitic and Asian religions on the one hand against the world's "tribal" religionson the other?Many African religious cults, for example, have crossed linguistic and ethnic b o u n d a r i e ~ . ~ ~ There is always a relationship between religion and other aspects of culture, but among both "primal" and "world" religions we find several cultures sharing one religion as well as several religions within one culture.25 David Turner has argued that Aboriginal Australian religions could equally well be classified as world religions in the sense that their method of relating to the world is "applicable to all times and places and all peoples independently of inherited membership in a defined kinship or ethnic group" (Turner, 1996, p. 80).

The past few decades have seen a rapid growth in the number of Americans and Western Europeans calling themselves Pagans - usually drawing on indigenous s~nall-scale societies (particularly Native American), Eastern religions, and pre-Christian European traditions in an eclectic mix. The oral and local are emphasized over the written and the universal (or abstract) -but here we have forms of religious belief and practice deiying classification according to the schemes outlined above. Contelnporary Western Paganism crosses cultures and languages, but usually empllasizes the importance of locality and of "spirits of place," as in primal religions. Paganism attracts former ]ews and Christians, as well as those without foundations in another faith, a characteristic usually associated with world religions. Aloysius Pieris has argued persuasively that:

Inass coni,ersiilns from one soteiialogy to another [e.g. from Christianity tc

Islam] are rare, if not in~possihle, except under military pressure. Rut a chnngc- over from a tribal religion to a metacosmic [u,orid] sorerioli>ey is : n qr ,n l ; lnvou i

process in which tlir f o r n ~ e ~ , wirhoul s;trriiirin~ its i,wn r l ~ i ~ r ; ~ ~ 1t.1, l ~ ~ ~ , v ~ ~ I v r :I

]7<>plll;l~ h,lh<' f<>r I \ ,< ' l;?ll<'S. (I?<Tih, I c ) 8 f ? , I>, '1'))

TIIEORIES AN[> CONTROVERSIES 25

With contemporary Wesrern Paganism, however, there is a reverse trend. perhaps the numbers involved at present hardly qualify for the term "mass conversion," but we do see a process in which substantial nun~hers of people are rejecting metacosmic religions that offer a notion of final salvation (a soteriology), turning instead, not to materialism and scientific explanations of existence, as both Frazer and Malinowski would have assumed, but to a pantheistic, magical view of the world.

James Mackey, a Christian theologian, complains of the "silliness of anthropology" in seeking at times to "draw clear lines between animism or magic and religion" (Mackey, 1996, p. 9). The implication is that anthropo- logists should have known bctter, but whatever position people start from they feel impelled to classify, define, exclude, and label hutnan experirnce. Matkey quotes Ludwig Feuerhach's dictum that "what today is atheism tomorrow will he called religion,"26 and makes a plea for a much more fluid and less dogmatic approach to definitions of religion, arguing that:

Of course people who Iuve somehow pre-dcfined thc nature oi divinity, anil more particularly those u~ho treat the notes of immanence and transccndcnce in relation to a divine dimension as contraries instead of what they ala,ays arc in Fact, namely, coorciin:itcs, can also appear to specify with gre;it accuracy wh;ii is to count as religion, as it truly rcligiiws dimension of life and kno\~~leilge, ;,nil what is not. I t is interesting to note rhsr this alleged ability is st, often sI~;~reil hy those whc arc most dogmatic about religion and tlaac who, alicgeJly an scientific gruunds, arc mi s t dismissive <if it . (Mackcy, 1996, pp. 8-9)

While definitions, categories and theories of origin have all influenced what i~~~thropologists have studied and how they have interpreted what they found, I :Ian not primarily concerned with such questions in the chapters that follow. 'Illis is not due to a lack of respect for analytical rigor, but stems from a t<,'<)gnition that religion as a category is fluid and contextr~al, and that my :II tempt to define the subject matter too narrowly risks giving a positivist BIHITII~ 10 what in fact is an interpretative process.

Conclusion

C\ntl~n~l,~,logists do no1 st:rrt their theorizing de ntrovo, from scratch, hut build @ti atal ~v;a.t I<, II><, work <d ihcir ~~rcdcrrssnrs. In thc followinc chapters we

7 h THEORIES A N D C O N T R O V E R S I F S

chapter are chosen for their relevance not just to the anthropology of religion, but also t o related disciplines, in particular religious studies. T h e examples used t o illustrate each theme are not exactly chosen a t random, but numerous alternative possibilities could equally have been selected. My own Christian upbringing, my anthropological education, and the experience of doing fieldwork i n Africa have all n o doubt influenced the tenor and subject matter of the book. Equally important, however, have been the interests of students and colleagues, and the availability of material. My hope is that readers will find this introduction t o the anthropology of religion sufficiently stimulating to continue their own explorations and reach their own conclu- sions regarding a fascinating and central area of human experience.

Notes

1 Quoted in Umy (1993, p. 12). 2 Secular and religious authority often merged, as indicated by the title "Holy

Roman Emperor" given to the successors of Charlemagne (c.742414) and the assumption of political power by the papacy.

3 There are numerous excellent works available on the history of Victorian anthropology and on the historical development of anthropological theories (see the References and Further Reading list at the end of this chapter), so here I artempt to do no more than give the reader same brief pointers.

4 Compare Sharpc (1998, pp. 222-3). 5 The term "methodological agnosticism" was coined by the religious studies

scholar Ninian Smart in order to distinguish it from sociologist Peter Berger's "methodological atheism." I am indebted to Gavin Flood for drawing my atrm- tion to this distinction.

6 See Bowie (1999). The debate on inculturation may include a more explicitly nationalist agenda. See, for instance, Paul Gifford's (1998, pp. 25942) discus- sion of Bishop Nkuirsi in the Cameroonian diocese of Nkongsamba.

7 A phenomenological or scientific stance has been challenged by theologiarw and philosophers as well as by anthropologists. The philosopher of religion Roger Trigg, for example, has argued that a focus on the social dimensions of religion "does violence to imporrant featurrs of religion," as it "appears to ignore the claim that religious beliefs can themselves bc held on rational grounds and hrncc have a right claim to uuth" (Trigg, 1998, p. 29).

8 Van der Leeuw acknowledged his debt to Lucien Levy-Bruhl, despite the tensions hctween an evolutionary and phenomenological stance. Van der Leeuw atso remained primarily a Chrisrian theologian for whom phenomenology was a tool that could aid theological speculation. For the anthropolo~isr uf religion. the main interest in van der Lceuw's work lies in his ;nttrtnilti ici ct>ntl>i~>~. descript~on with ~~syclholo~ical insights, rmoii<n>, r x l w l i n > ~ r , ~ l \ t l 1\11. 1 ~ v : t t ~ t , ~ >

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 27

of meaning. He was not a fieldworker, but these issues lie at the heart of ethno- graphic practice and of debates on how to understand and represent other people's experience. In"ConfessionScientifique" (Numen, 1,1954, p. lo), for instance, van de Leeuw wrote that the phenomenology of religion "consisted not merely in making an inventory and classification of phenomena as they appear in history, but also a psychological description which necessitated not only a metiullous observation of the religious reality, but also a systematic introspection; not only the description of what is visible from outside, hut a b v e all the experience bornof what canonly become reality after it has hecn admirred into the life of theobserver himself" (cited inshave. 1998, p. 231).

9 For a description of the history of the use of phenomenology in religious studies and a critique of it, see Sharpe (1998. p p 220-50). Erricker (1999), and Fl<,od (1999). James Cox (1992) provides a clear account of the phcnomcnological mcthcd as applied to the study of religion, using Maurice Merleau-Punty (1908- 61) to introduce a rather more nuanced notion of rhe interaction of the ohserver with the phenomenon observed. An account of several phenomenological

i thinkers, including Malinowski and Eliade, can he found in Berris (1969). 10 For a critique of Stoller and Olkes see Geschierc (1997, p. 281) and Oliver de

Sardin (1988). 1 I FierreRourdieuoutlinesrhreestagesin thcr f m i a l experience to

anthropological rheory. Firsr, we have the rules and theories of the people being studied. At t lx next level there are the rules and theones d t h c ethnographer, and, third, the rules and merhcdsgovemingrhcdiscipline asa whole (even ifthesedonor form asingle parrern ofideas) (Bjurdicu, 1977, pp. 3-91, While manyanthrupolo- gisrsmay succeed in keeping these three lewlsconccpt~tally distinct, others may find the boundaries becoming confused, which can lead m a sense ofdisorientation. At one extreme the anthropologist may "go native" and abandon any arrempt to maintain his or her previous assunlptions and values, while at the other extreme the fieldworkcr may withdraw, physically or psycholo~ically, or erect barrien around eachdi~ourse ro maintain his or her separateness. Most, liowcvcr, accept the uneasy challenge of moving between the worlds of informants, thc academy, and the self, perhaps consciously using the self as an ethnographic tool.

I 2 Those who attempt to bridge this gap oftrn wrirc under a pseudonym, such as Laura Bohannan, who adopted the nom de plume Elcanor Smith Bowen in hcr personal account of life with the Tiv in northern Nigeria (1954). Those who du stick their head above the parapet risk having it knocked off, bheing dismissed as ~,opularists, a fate that befell Nigel Barley's immensely successful (outside aca- demia) stories of fieldwork among the Dawayo of Cameroon (1983, 1986).

I (:ompare Parkin (19821, Clifford and Marcus (1986), Bowie (1996), and Flood (1 999) on reflcxivc trends in anthropology and religious studies.

1.1 'l'hr ; ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ r ~ ~ ~ x ~ l ~ ~ ~ i C : I j subjcc1s n~ay he one intended audience of rhe academic ~tu,o<,n~;tpli, 11\11 11) c o t n ~ n ~ ~ c i i ~ l l ~ ~ ~ h l i ~ l ~ r i wo~tld accept a manuscript written Ino!ttitily 1 ' 1 , i s li~turc.,l. *I,c<nitlibt ,:101111 01' 11,:1~11.15 (vxicpr ;!n : I C : I , ~ C I I I / C OI>C - will, H \ l . l l . t ! t ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ l l l ? t ; t ~ y :,,$I<'>)

28 T H E O R I E S ANUCONTROVERSIES

15 Women and others in a structurally weak position commonly resort to claims of divine inspiration in order to pass on their message without directly challenging those in authority (which is not to deny the truths of these claims). A classic example of this is the German medieval abbess, Hildegard of Bingen, who, although extraordinarily talented and influential, nevertheless insisted that she was hut a "feather on the hreath of God" and that her writing came from the "living light'' rather than her own creative mind (see &,wie and Davies, 1990).

I6 T h e distinction between religion and magic is often less clear-cut in practice than Malinowski's distinction would suggest. Is a rain dance an efficacious magical act, or implication of a deity to act on behalf of those making the request? Most magical acts involve the action of a n intermediary power between the performer of the rite and its intended result. The words of consecration used by a Roman Catholic priest during the Mass can be seen as an end in themselves - making Christ present in the Eucharistic bread and wine.

17 David Tomas (1991) gives an interesting account of the colonial backgtound to the administration of the Andaman Islands prior to and during Radcliffe-Brown's fieldwork, and of attrrnprs by the British to "tame" the "primitive and savage" tribal in this remote comer of the Empire.

18 Accotdui~g to Lfvi-Srrauss motifs in myths or folk tales recur and the elemenrs within them arc transformed in a limited number of fairly predictable ways. A myth is not d e h d by a single, original, or correct version, bur by the sun, of i t i many variations and transformations.

19 In The Nnturnlness of Religiour Idem (1994). Pascal Boyer argues that there are cognitive (genetic) constraints on the cultural acquisition and transformation of religion. This accounts for the recurrence of univenal themes in religious beliefs and practices (in a way similar to Chomsky's innate grammar and LEvi-Strauss's universal mythic themes). For Boyer, "culture" as a concept is too vague and relativistic to account for religious transmission. We are predisposed to accept certain concepts and to ignore others. Mimesis (imitation) alone cannot account for the continutry of religious practices. Boyer admits that his cognitive approach ignores most fraturcs of re l i~ion that human subjects actually find interesting or important (such as emotions and experience, power and the operation o i polit- ical relations, and aesthetics). Maurice Bloch (1998) also argues that culture and cognition need to he separated, and that because anthropologists tend to focus on the explicit and the unusual, cultural variation is often exaggerated. For Bloch. everyday knowledge is implicit or "inexplicit," and therefore anthropoloa can- not aHord to ignore the work of cognitive psychologisrs when trying to give an account of human societies. Boyer and Bloch, in their views on religion and cognition, represent the experience,far or etic end of the specrrum, although Bloc11 also argues passionately for the value of participant observation.

20 Baker (1867), quoted in Evans,Pritchard (1972, p. 7). This starcmcnr is parricu. larly ironic, as the subsequent fieldwork of Evans~Pritrl~:~r~l (1')74) :uni>t,r: thr Nuer and Godfiey Licnhardr (1978) amonl: thc I?ink:~ =- ~ , I I I I , '.tt(l;~nrr<. Naial~~,

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 29

peoples -depict rather pious peoples whose devotions center a n a Supreme Being (known as kwoth and nhialic respectively).

21 Cited in Jahoda (1999, p. 142), who is in turn citing Cairns (1965, p. 94).

22 Tylor was responsible for the questions o n religion in the 1874 edition of Notes and Quoies - which became a standard manual for aspiring fieldworkers. He urged detailed and careful obsenration, with prefaces that were "clearly intended to counteract the effects of monotheistic ethnocentrism - to enable observers reared in the Christian tradition to recognize animistic rcliyion where orhenvise they might simply have reporred some form of degenerate 'devil worship,' or even that their particular 'savage' group had n o religion at all" (Stocking 1996. p. 15). ]ahd;t (1999, p. 227) points out that some Victorian descriptions ofthe Irish and Highland Scots as primitive savages resembled accounts of Afr~can and nrher non-Western "primitive" peoples. Although color and race were (and remain) important elements in defining the "other." poverty, the use of a minority language, remoteness from urban centers, and a lack of English manners were sufficienr to earn the appellation "savage." See Smith (1999) for a perspective from "colonized" peoples.

23 Pieris (1988, p. 90) claims that "Nonc of the Asian soteriologies [horn the Greek sorer, 'savior']. . . has offered us a comprehensive word for, or a clear concept of, religion in the current Western sense."

24 See Shaw (1990) and Cox (1996). 25 See Pieris (198R, p. 97). This really just hegs the same definitional questions.

What is a religion! What isa culture! Who has the power to classify a religion? There has been considrrahle dphate in Africa, for instance, as to whether African Independent Churches and various African new religiius movemmts should be considered Christian or not. As religions always change and develop, drawing on different elements at different rimes, we are left with a sh~fting field of contested definitions.

26 Feuerbach (1957, p. 32). cited in Mackey (1996, p. 9).

References and Further read in^

liatfield, Thomas (ed.) (1997) The Dictionary of Anthrupoioa. Oxford: Blackwell. 1I;iriey. Nigel (1983) Thc Innocent Anthrapolagirt: Notes burn o Mud Hut. London:

Colonnade Books, British Muscum Publications. II;~rley, Nigrl (1986) A Plagw ~{Cnterpillars: n Return to the African Bush. London:

Viking. lkrtis, Joseph D. (ed.) (1969) Phenomen~lo~ ofReligian: Eiz111 Modem Descriptions of

rhi. Esscnri, i , j Kcliiliot~. 1-oniion: SCM. l\ltrl,, Mxi r i< .v I < . I:, (li)X5) her fjkwinR 10 Viol<mcc: l ~ f i s ~ < x ? < ~ s ldc<~lon' r t ~ l11t Circunt-

< iti,,?~ l ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ l o [ ~ l ~ ~ ~ Mc>i,1(3 ~t{M,ul,t~mor, (~;11111~1i~lgt~: (::I~IIIX~<I,:<~ I J t ~ i v ~ ~ s ~ t ~ ~ I1rcsh. 1111,th, hl.t t~!!< r I:. 1: (I0'1:i) I I < I I I ~ U/~~' l l~t t ik 'I'lli,y '11111111: Ai~t/~li~\,,>ltij~i< ril Allv<,iii/lcl( 1 1 ,

I 'r~#rtil!ot~, M,.III,IIY ,,r,,l I III.,~IIY l b ~ t $ I ~ l ~ t , 1 ( 1. , ~ I I ( I t l x l ~ ~ j ~ l Wc,rl$,ivn l'lr.,...

30 THEORIES AN13 CONTROVERSIES

Boutdieu, Pierre (1977) Ouliw oja Themy ofPracrice. Cambridge: Camhridge University Press.

Bowen, Eleanor Smith (1954) Return to Laughter. New York: Harper and Row. Bowie, Fiona (1998) Trespassing on sacred domains: a feminist anthropological

approach to theology and religious studies. Journal of Feminixt Stdies in Religion, 14(1), 40-62.

Ebwie, Fiona (1999) The inculturation debate in Africa. Studies in World Christianity, 5(1), 67-92.

Bowie, Fiona and Davies, Oliver (1990) Hiidegard of Binge": an Anthology. London: SPCK; New York: Crossroad.

Boyer. Pascal (1994) The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: a Copitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cairns, H. A. C . (1965) Prelude w lmfwrinlism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Clifford, James and Marcus, George E. (eds) (1986) Writing Culture: the Poetic5 and

Politus of Ednagraphy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cox, James L. (1992) Experring the .Smed: a n Innad& to the P h e ~ m e n o l o ~ of

Religion. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications. Cox, James 1 . (1996) The classification of "primal religions" as a non-empirical

Christian theological construct. Studies in World Chtisdonity, 2(1), 55-76. Cunningham, Graham (1999) Religion and Magic: Appmhes and Tkheones. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press. Darwin, Charles (1897) T k Descent of Man, and Sekcuon in Relation to Sex. London:

Mutray. Davis, John (ed.) (1982) Religious Organi~ation and Religious Exp-ce. ASA Mono-

graph 21. London and New York: Academic Press. Drummond, Henry (1894) The Lowell kccures on the Ascent of Man. New York:

Pott. Durkheim, Emile (1976) The Ekmenta'y Fans of the Religious Life. London: George

Allen & Unwin (originally published 1915). Erickson, Paul A. and Murphy, Liam D. (2001) Readingsfor a Hisw'y of Anthropological

Theup. Ontario and New York: Broadview Press. Erricker, Clive (1999) Phenomnlological approaches. In Peter Connolly (ed.),

Aplroacher to the Study of ReLgion. London and New York: Cassell, pp. 73-104. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1972) Theories of Primitive Relrgin. Oxford: Oxford University

Press (originally published 1965). Evans-Pritchard. E. E. (1974) Nuer Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press (origin-

ally published 1956). Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1976) Witclinufi, Oracles and Ma@' among the Azande.

Abridged with an introduction hy Eva Gillies. Oxford: Ciarendon Press (originally published 1937).

Ev:ins-Pritchard, E. E. (1981) A History of Anrhropolopical Thought. London: Fabei. Favret-Saada, Jeanne (1980) Deodly Word.: Witchcraft in the Rocnce. Camhrider:

Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Scienrcs clr 1'1 l<lcncne. Feuerbach, Ludwig (1957) The Ersence of Chr~tianity. Ncw Y < d : l ' r o 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 t ~ I l t l ~ I ~ ~ .

THEORIES A N D CONTROVERSIES 3 1

f-llll9,l, (iavin (1999) Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the SNdy of Religion. London: 1 ,,.,~.ll.

ptasrt, James (1890) The Golden Bou&: a SNdy in Comparative Religion, 2 volumes. I ,,ttll<,n: Macmillan.

l i r r n t i , Clifford (1973) Religion as a cultural system. In Michael Banton (ed.), ,4itri1ropologicnl Approaches to the Study of Religion. ASA Monographs 3. London: I itvistack. pp. 1-116 (originally published 1966; reprinted in C . Geera (1993), The l t~~~.~pxtat ion of Cultures. London: Fontana, pp. 87-125).

~ i ~ l l n r r , David (1999) Ar~thropolopical approaches. In Peter Connolly (cd.), Approaches to the S t ~ d y of Religion. London and New York: Cassell, pp. 10-41.

I i~uh ie re , Petcr (1997) The Modernity of Witchnaf: Politics and the Occult in Post- toklnial A h a , translated hy Perer Gcschiere and Janet Raitman. Charlotrcsvillc :~nd London: Univcrsiry of Virginia Press.

(illlord, Paul (1998) African Chtlrcianity: lor Public Rok. London: Hurst and C~rnpany. I i~n~hrie, Stewart Elliott (1997) The originofan illusion. In Stephen D. Glazier (ed.),

Aa~hropolo~ of Religion: n Hn&ok. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 4H9-504.

/ L!rt~.;trt, A. M. (1973) Tlte Lfc-giving Myth and Orher Essays. London: TavistocU Mcrhuen (originally 1952).

I4r,rlon, Robin (1994) Pat- of Thought in Afica and the West. Camhridge: Cam- I,rxlge University Press.

Irl~m,~l;a, Gustav (1999) Images of Saua~i's: Ancient Roots of Modem I'rejudice in Wcsrem I ~ulturc. London: Routledge.

Jal(>l~\cn. Merete Llemant (1999) Shamanisn~: Traditional and Conte,nporn'y All- l ~ ~ ~ , ~ h e s to the M a r q of Spirits ond Healing Oxford: Berghahn.

h'runey, Micl~ael (1992) A v e q bad disease ofrhe arms. In Philip R. DeVita (ed.). Ila. Naked Anthropologist: Taks from Around the World. Belmonr, CA: Wadsworrh.

,\I.. 47-57. Kuklick, Henrika (1993) The Savage Within: the History of British Anthropok,gy, 1885-

1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kt~~>cr, Adam (1988) The Invention of Primitlue Society: T~ansformations of an IUurion.

I c ~ ~ d o n and New York: Routlcdgc. I . ~ l l r ~ ~ a n n , Arthur C. and Myers, lames E. (eds) (1997) M a p , Witchcraft oand Religion:

rzrt Anrhropolo@d Study of the Supmtural , 4th edn. Mountain Vieu,, CA: Mayfield I'tthlishing Co.

I rll , lames (1997a) Science, religion and anthrapology. In Stephen D. Glszier (?<I.), Anthropology of Religion: n Handhook. Westport, CT: Grcenwood Press. 1111. 103-20.

, tell . I:tmes (1997h) Saence, Reason ad Anthropology: the Principles of Rational Inquiry. I :nliliam. MI1 and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

I cvl S~raclss, ( :l;ilnlr (1969) The Elementary Stncnirei of Kinship. London: Eyre and Sl,l,~~iswocnlc (i,rlg~n:~lly l~~~l,lished 1949).

I I ( : I ( I -iL, K<ai mi11 rla. (:ra,kt,<I. I ~ ~ I Y ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ ~ , I < ) <I Sri<,~!ec 4 A l v r h i ~ l r ~ ~ , r!r~l~(rrir I I ~ > I I < I < ~ l < ~ ~ ~ i i t l ~ s t n ( ' ; t l ~ , ,

't,,,rTl,r,,,, :,1111,11,>leuly S.llltl>,ll.,

z 'uo@l!la>l jo L~~Is "1 01 ',?qn~ctuklv hri,lcl<l<il.lnar:) (IH,,~) (.\'.!) qk12l:l 'Xtnl!'q& '01 5b? 'IJ

<syoog paZ :uopuol .om& u! sa!~!iujp[ jmuO,OJlc<,,[ '(u~J) .I~XUU>I ~>UJI"I, [)LIB

lauqlaiX\ pieqxx u1 .e3!yv u! uo!X!lal jo dpnls JL[~ YLLII~~.I~SLI<I~~~ :110!111.1 11~d

ju s>!,!lod J~I pue sa!~~iorl'ne pasaluog (9,561) lalaj 'sfad pue $18 '~IIII u%k .szaqs!lqnd s!wape=v poo.weH :vw 'Zulpea~ .Gktlwl

,uLyluv ys!l!Lg 10 k0lSll JqI "0 ~DSS~ :aqodoiI,l~v jm2US .%i~fig (€661) Sa~ll( 'i\lin 'MO\J 9 la&YH :POh MaN '(1181 'k'lb 1,

p z >ILI"~OA 10 )u!I~?I) a~'l111ln3 J~!J!U~IL~ II! uoggaa (8561) ilawng plemm 'nyh~ 'hs~~n~ :uapuo-[ .samn[on z guo~m3 pie 'uv 'uo$!lag 'bqdosq!qj '~Gqo~ll,$y

Jo ~umdq~laaa alp olu! sayxoasa>j :a*nilna 2.tn!u!*d (1181) x~aung pmmm 'IC~A~ 96-11 '(1)Z 'LI!UW!ISU~~ miOn\ Ill

rnpn~s .luamsasse ue :uo!a![a~ pllom re uo!B![al leu!5iroqv (9661) 'H ~IAP.~ '9~11tb~

'l\amy>e1g :pJO>SO U0$qaa pun ~I~VUO!ID~ (8661) 1280~ '*All

.801-s~ -dd issald U!EUO>S!IX\ ju hl!s~an!un :uos!~B,,~ .L awnlon 'h5ojodo~~l1r~" jo htols!~ .a;lpqraou~ ~!y~lv&uq13 jo uo~ror![a1xauo3 qi uo sLvrs3 :ruo!lmlit\ rV!Uq03 '(~3) I[ Yu!YJO~S .fi ;1811>39 U1 Zi61-8s81 'S~UB[S[ UeUIepUV 3111 iitl

SUO!leAlJSi]o ~!~~YJYc>L~~IJJo 110!13np<lld aql :ape21 Jql JO E[<MJ ( 1661) p!AeO '*1'III41L

.ssaJ<l $,a*

-ran!un qYlnqu!pg :~p%nqir~pg .sauiayL ~ru!ssqg ayr :~io@!pa (6661) SXIIE[ 'JJU'III 1 '(8bb[ p~~[Stllq"d ~~[uu!~!Jo) S*.'l,I

Al!slan!un p3oJxO :uopuol -D>,$V ljlnos u! n2qdoid nluvg (1961) ,w '9 g '121y1'Itl!;

.s.;aq oZe>!~[3jo A~!SJX!CI~ I

:uopuq pue o3e~!q3 .morns s,iCa~lo~ ul (6861) 1,'.121[3 csaqO pue ined 'l"llol$

'EEaJd 2liO[qlv :UOpIIII [

[S61-888[ aq0dOlt/lUV Im3OS V.Wl!lg :1qLL ;121jv (9661) I[ 'iX\ JXliloa9 '8Llly.*llg -rrald u!iuo~s!h\ 10

hl!sla~!un :uos!pem .L alunlon 'A8o~odolq1uy jo Lols!~ 'aJpqmoU>~ ~yd~~8mq13 w!ID~,~Ix.~u~~ aqr uo sl~osq :ruo!ivni!~ lo!uqo3 (1661) ('p) 1['i~\ aXloa9 8a~~p~~

.ss~q aq aql :y~oh 6aN ~Gqalorqiu~ urmolnl\ (~861) I['& ailma9 'Xo!q.~t*~~; '001-8801 'dd 'dLl!!il

-uo3 pue plo~ LUJH :?,oh M~N '5 mnjo~ 'G%ya(J01y111v ]w~lljn3 jo qpadq~ix*:l '(spa) 1aqu13 u!i\lam pu uosu!~a7 p!,w~ "1 .uo!X!p~ (9661) J[ d!ll!qj 'SU.>.\.~I~:

y~1-5~ 'Jd 'y~ols!ne~ :uopuc,-1 ( i1lJn9ouo~y v~v .uo@!jag lo dpnr~ a111 01 s~ymouldv lo~$qoduiyluv '(.pa) u<urll\[ [aegxw LII .uv!l~u~ldaa pue uo!l!u!,apjo SUI~~~OIJ :uo!a!lax (fL61) .3 PIOJ~JH 'uxI~I~.

a~c'a~i'~ 9 sure!ll!& :uopUO1 .SaLlInlOA E 'mqo!JDSJO S?~!JU?~ qL (9191) IlaCllJH '1.1 '"J.!:~

9008 pq :?10,{ MaN PUE UOpUq '~ylll'.),l ma8!pul puo y=ro~~aa :s$qDpDTaw Buajuqo~aa (6661) !e.n!tInL epu!-l 'IIIILLII

'su!l[Qa&eH :ucqnl" I

.sJqag S,m*oiX\ Jyl JO ~UOI~~ :paLJUS ayl /O No!SUJU!a (9661) Ue!U!N 'I"'"1Y

'LSdEC ' 1 rtu!a!l,>.~ I~:UU!I!PEJ, UB'!IJ~ JO uo!Iuanu! aqA (0661) pu![esrx 'MK~S

.rsaq h~!waA!un pleAJeH :uopuol pue vw 'Bp!~qura3 .a70 -il~trd jmnqn3 u! iuo!r!padxg ::ra*nrln~ q3no~q1 Yu!yu!q~ (9661) v PIE~JIX "~PJM~JS

.IPJOM :ui~puq .uo!ssa~dru! q~+ 'aas!~ D :uMgag anuoiwlutog (8661) ( J!XJ 'abeq~

.uelj!uxw :ur,pnq .C8olo4oiyruv Jo kmro!v!a urqpu~~py (9861) 211011~q3 'ql!ms.lnowha~

.ssala Aiiuan~un aZp1rqrue3 :aZp!lqmcg .C?qodo~qiuv IDPUS u! L~IS u :S~IL~~I u~urpiv ay~ (2261) p[eu!Yan paljlv 'urnwg-ap[~pe8

qI"j3 L 3 :qZlnqU!m 'UO!ID*aq!7/0 mqOjr(L UV!St, UV (8861) [S "!SA01V 'S!J~!J

-!I-!x .dd 'ssald ?!mapeq :?>oh ma^ pue uopuol 'ZZ qde~Souopq VSV .,Gqiolo'li~~y~uv JlrumuaS '(-pa) u!y~ed p!nPa UI .UO!IJ~~OJIUI (~861) plnea 'u!yln~

O~LZS '(b/~)8~ 'sauuq~v srapm? sap sla!qvg -auus!sua>-ouqla ra sns!4!la1 aws!loxa :anb!8olouqla ,,a!,, la a~uehois el ap na[ (8661) al~a~d.uea[ 'UepJuS ap iah![~

'(rL81 paqs!lq"d h~[eu!Z!'o) ssaq ou~y :y~o~ ma^ .uo$gag jo aJuq ayl m uo!~mpoaul (8161) xem '5 'la[[n~

.ssaq hl!s~an!un ~2p!lqme3 :a8p!lq -me2 'IxaL iCor~npollu[ uD :uo@qaa jo sapis lo@qoJa*qluv (1861) Ue!lg 'S!uol/y

.I[!H MW~W :uolsog .ups p~c 'h~qz X*mmpo~lu[ uo :&oay~ j~$qodoiljruv (moz) '7 pleqzq 'smxIX\ pue uoC.8 'aa~qy

.(8+6[ paqsllqnd r([[eu!X!:o) ssald i!Ua"noS :uopuo7 .rLnssg pun uo$qa~ pun J~IJS 'J~UR (+16[) fiels!uoq '!ysmou!qefl

L[--+IE '~11 'amlQN (7~vrnuaYa3 up milnx a!C[ '('pa) Ylaqauu!~ 'd jv fia!Aax] .A8olodorqlua jo h!un aq~ (~~61) M~~S!UO~ c!?s~ou~lefl

'5~-I '(I)? 'h!uml~y3 ppoix\ u! saps 'uo!%![a~ 10 a=ua!>s aql pue a=ua!3s '&%loaq~ :salnqn-, pua h1!ue!is!iy3 (9661) sawel 'hay3efl

'[[arnT>elg ]!sea :pro~xo 'I~DL~ s,qn!lh\ ay, jo suo!mns*ad (6861) ehue~ 'uuemlqn7

'(1961 Pa'IS!1T"' Alle .u!S!lo) ssaq uopualel3 :p~ojx~ .aJuquadxZ pun &!yn!a (8161) hajp~) '~p~eyuaq

.ad83 ueq~euo[ :uopuq .+ aunlon 'C8qflqrhpy jo ~JUAJS D m uopmpoauI .uayq pqn~ aqL (1861) apnel3 'ssns1>9!~2

'adeg usq>euo[ :uopnq 'f aunjofi 'Oiqoq~bpy Jo aJua!,S D 4 uo!~rnpoau[ .slauuDpq qqv~ jo u,@!lg JYL (8161) apnq3 'ssne~~s~~g .sue7 ua11v :UO~UL>~ ..jl aulnjon 'Gop(lOdo~~u~ ]o~n~mu~ (~161) ape13 -ssneJlS-!n?7

'(8561 paV!lqnd hlleu!a!~'J) u!n%Lllrd :~lIOMSPUOWlEH .C~~O~OL~(IUV lVlX13WS (ELL61) apnE13 'SS"ellS-!~g

-(z961 paqs![q"d h[jeu!z!~o) uosl02!~ pue plyuap!a,y, :uopuq .pu!ly- J~VJ~DS ay~ (9L61) apnel3 'ssneq-!n?l

.adeg ueqleuu[ :uopuq .Z aunlon 'iWqo -qrb~\iJo ammS n oi uogmpouul -sqsv 01 dmro~ uroq :(5~61) apnel3 'ssnms.!A?l

(2961 PaYs!I -qnd A~IEUIS!IO) u!n;iuad :qliomspuouueH -ucs.p.no~ (q~~61) apnel3 'ssne11~-!~?7

'(5561 pa'ls!lqnd A11eu!Y!1o) ade3 ueqleuo[ :uopuol .sanb!do~~ sa~su~ (~€161) apnel3 'ssnenS-!ng

S?ISX3AO)Il,NOS UN'd S31NO3HI Z$